The killer here is poaching and loss of habitat, not trophy hunting. 3,700 trophy kills since 1985 2007 is quite small -- about 115 370 per year. Compare that to the almost 1,800 deaths per year due to other causes.

In addition, some trophy hunting is used to provide funds for conservation efforts. It literally pays people to stop destroying habitat and guard against poachers. Remove trophy hunting and those things -- the bigger killers -- may increase.

EDIT: numbers

Some people just like to kill shit. I never really understood the reason for shooting an animal that poses basically zero threat to you.

Take your facts and totally reasonable assessment of a complicated issue elsewhere! Hunting = bad ok, end of story.

I'd rather have all these animals go extinct than let one more rich American contribute to conservation efforts through their regulated hunting of animals segregated and sometimes bred distinctly for the purpose of hunting.

Edit: Jesus Christ, didn't realise i should have put an /s tag on this. There are some dumb fucking ppl in this thread. Point was its a complicated issue and hunting around the world DOES contribute to conservation efforts, both in breeding and in anti poaching programs. I am not a hunter, just someone who is able to understand both sides of an issue, unlike the frothing extremes displayed below. I highly recommend anyone who gives a shit and is interested in breaking their own confirmation bias look at both the video in the OP i replied to above, as well as the articles someone posted below regarding questionable effectiveness of hunting funded conservation efforts. It ain't simple people.

hunting for meat is cool (deer and such), trophy hunting is sick.
edit: I can't spell good, and stuff.

Yeah, killing game for food is fine, but killing a fucking giraffe just so you can say you did? Kinda shitty. Kinda really shitty.

Are these opponents predominantly conservationists or are they animal rights activists? Fields with very different goals so I'm wary of conservation news coming from humane societies instead of impartial conservation organizations.

Yes giraffes are in decline, like many large African species. Shouldn't be too surprising as the continent is developing and as that happens the wilderness gets destroyed and there is less habitat to support large animals. Africa's population is set to double by 2050 so we have not seen the worst of it yet.

As for trophy hunting, it really depends how it's being conducted as to whether it's harmful or not. It can be mismanaged or it can be an important conservation tool; it can even be both.*

As for threats giraffes, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature writes in its 2016 assessment:

Major Threat(s):

Four major threats to Giraffes can be identified, although the severity and presence of these threats varies by region and population: (1) habitat loss (through deforestation, land use conversion, expansion of agricultural activities and human population growth) (2) **civil unrest (ethnic violence, rebel militias, paramilitary and military operations), (3) illegal hunting (poaching), and (4) ecological changes (mining activity, habitat conversion to agriculture, climate-induced processes). In Southern Africa, the main perceived threats are habitat loss and conversion of land for human development, and illegal hunting. In West Africa, the main threats are habitat loss due to increasing human populations and human-wildlife conflict. In Eastern and Central Africa the main threats are habitat loss through rapid conversion of land for farming and increasing human populations, drought, illegal hunting for meat and hide, and armed conflict throughout unstable regions.

Notice trophy hunting is not on the list. If you don't know, the IUCN is the international organization that compiles scientific data to come up with official threatened statuses for species worldwide - they publish the Red List, which is what I linked above.

I know some people will feel that threatened animals should never be hunted but in some cases I don't believe hunting is detrimental. If the animal is declining due to lack of resources (like habitat), and not overexploitation, then they will still be liable to reproduce to the limit of their reduced resources, at which point nature will take care of the excess population through starvation, disease, fighting, etc. IMO, better to remove the surplus animals through hunting which brings in money, incentivizes wildlife protection and feeds people.

Even species that are threatened by over exploitation can be stable or increasing in some areas (check out the pdf at the end of the "Population" section in the IUCN link). You can see many regions have increasing or stable giraffe populations, even if declines in other regions are steep. Not surprisingly, South Africa has an increasing population, as they do of so many species. In the early 90s South Africa legalized private ownership of wildlife, which led to a lot of farmers selling their cattle and turning their land in a wildlife reserve, which are often economical in part to selling hunts vs selling cattle to market. Several threatened species have recovered with significant help from this setup.

Lastly I'll point out that although the trophy hunters do not import the meat back home, they will consume it on the trip and from what I've read, what isn't eaten by the hunting party is sold or given to villagers. Here is a blog showing the aftermath of a giraffe trophy hunt - clearly the meat wasn't wasted.

From A Hunting Ban Saps a Village’s Livelihood by the NYT about the effects of Botswana's hunting ban:

Galeyo Kobamelo, 37, said he had lost all 30 goats in the kraal just outside his family compound to lions and hyenas since the hunting ban. Elephants had destroyed his fields of sorghum and maize.

With the hunting ban, his family no longer receives the free meat that hunters left behind. His mother, Gomolemo Semalomba, 58, no longer receives a pension, about $100 twice a year.

“Now we don’t eat meat anymore,” she said, pointing to a table with plates of cabbage, beans and maize meal.

With all that said, my personal opinion is that the issue of trophy hunting should be left up to the countries in which the hunting is taking place and conservationists whose only agenda is the conservation of species.

*To anyone doubting this, I recommend reading "Informing decisions on trophy hunting: A Briefing Paper for European Union Decision-makers regarding potential plans for restriction of imports of hunting trophies", an April 2016 publication by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature.

I'd rather have all these animals go extinct than let one more rich American contribute to conservation efforts

The sad part is, this isn't even hyperbole. Take a look at this 60 Minutes documentary on the issue:

The person they interview, who is trying to get trophy hunting in Texas banned, basically says she'd rather have the animals go extinct than be hunted on private ranches.

The fact is, private ownership of endangered animals has been shown to be the best method of conservation period. Unsurprisingly, when people can make a profit by creating more of these animals, they'll create more of these animals. This is the same reason why cows will never go extinct as long as McDonalds is around.

The person they interview who is trying to get trophy hunting in Texas banned basically says she'd rather have the animals go extinct.

Like PETA, she's not concerned with the animals, only with controlling other humans' behavior because she sees it as immoral.

Look, I work in natural resources and love the enviroment and everything, but where we are now, trophy hunting is kind of necessary. People love to hate them, saying they are killing innocent animals and such. But in reality, the hunters make up a massive chunk of the conservation budget for these animals, and most of the people crying foul are contributing nothing but good feelings.

If you want to go after a group of hunters, make it the poachers. They are the ones that really do the most damage.

There's a part in where a breeder talks about how things are screwed up in Africa and if it weren't for the hunting some of the animals might go extinct.

But my pillow made of soft, soft giraffe noses...

You don't go duck hunting because you hate ducks. You go duck hunting because you like hunting ducks and are the kind of person who might want to do it again next year, or in a decade.

We have scientists at work right this very moment developing synthetic giraffe noses to curb your insatiable appetite.

Didn't think about the money spent going back to conservation efforts. That's great and my question has been fulfilled. Thanks!

It's the same reason Ducks Unlimited is such a powerful conservation group . . . sometimes the people who care about these animals and their habitat the most are the ones who want to be able to hunt them.

It was fine for natives to kill for food. Now there's way too many humans for it to be fine, the equation became unbalanced.

Great response to this bullshit article - thanks.

Like it or not hunters are about the only group that is really putting their money where their mouth is. Trophy hunting does protect endangered species as well as support the local economy (which is often in corners of the world where they really do need the help).

My boss went to Africa on a hunting trip last year and got a giraffe. The whole trip cost him over $150k and the Giraffe alone was something like $20-30k. After the hunt, the entire animal, minus the neck pelt and head, was donated to a local tribe to be used as bush meat. He apparently shared a meal with them and they told him that the Giraffe would sustain them for weeks. The vast majority of the money he paid goes to local conservation efforts. He does enjoy hunting, as do I. It's not the act of killing that you enjoy, however, it's the hunt itself.

Your math is a little off, it's 3,700 in the last decade, not since 1985. About 370 a year. But you're correct that the bigger problem is poaching and loss of habitat.

According to the groups’ analysis of import data, Americans imported 21,402 bone carvings, 3,008 skin pieces and 3,744 miscellaneous hunting trophies from giraffes over the past decade. At least 3,700 individual giraffes are thought to have been killed for such items.

Edit: Also, placing more protections on the species wouldn't remove trophy hunting, it would just make sure that any trophy hunting would be much more likely to contribute to conservation.

An endangered species listing would place heavy restrictions on any American hunter wishing to travel to Africa and bring back a slaughtered giraffe. A hunter would have to somehow demonstrate the taking of the giraffe trophy was helping sustain the species.

Well, I was on a safari recently (on horseback, so no loud car motors) and it was incredibly difficult to get close to them. They blend in very well with their surroundings and could see us coming from a mile off, and would move away. Their running gait looks like slow motion but they cover a lot of distance very quickly. I don't hunt, but if I did, it seems like giraffe would be difficult.

But what about

Considering stray cats are feral and a major reason for the extinction of dozens of bird species?

Smash away.

Nobody else want to spend enough money to save the habitat.

I'm all for preservation of our planets animals especially when poaching is involved. But 22k "bone carvings" from giraffes over 10 years doesn't seem all that crazy when compared to the literal tons of ivory being moved. Seems like 1 giraffe that was poached or just died would be hundreds of carvings alone.

There are 3 animals that have gone extinct, the scimitar Oryx being one, that are thriving on game-ranches in Texas. The addax and Dama gazelle are the other two species. They literally only exist today because hunters are managing their populations in Texas.

I totally understand where you're coming from. My natural reaction to sport hunters is to feel like they're psychopaths and that there's a waste of life when the animals are killed for seemingly no reason.

However, I've read quite a bit about game management and I've learned that hunting can actually be used to preserve a species. With lions for example, the African game wardens will allow sport hunters, from the US and Europe, to come and kill the old male lions that are out of breeding age but pose a threat to the younger males. An old male lion can scare off or kill younger male lions that have a better shot at mating with the females. Those old male lions have no more value for species, so they'll be selected by game management to be hunted and some American hotshot will spend $50,000 for the honor of flying to Africa and shooting the animal. This is a win-win. The troublesome animal gets hunted and killed, and money spent goes to the conservation efforts and/or the local economy.

If it was just open season and anyone could come and shoot any animal they liked, that would be a shitty situation, but most of the game management in Africa (and North American and Europe, by the way) is done very intelligently to manage animal populations.

There are times when killing an animal is better for the conservation of the species. Older male Rhinos get very, very aggressive and lose the ability to breed. You'll see them kill other males and females.

Generally, a wildlife manager will let someone shoot the older male Rhinos in exchange for a couple hundred thousand bucks which goes toward keeping the other animals safe and the facilities running. Its also worth noting that they don't send a guy out alone or with his own guides. They track with him and make sure it's the correct animal.

This is true for ducks, but fuck those Canada geese. I smile while eating goose jerky while watching the geese at the lake.

Should they not rather lobby IUCN than US ? Anyway - seems like half arsed bullishit article anyway.

The topic is only tricky in African countries where capitalism is selectively applied at best. , where property rights are very well defined, it's crystal clear that trophy hunting is the best conservation method for these animals

The only people I know that are even concerned about, let alone use their own money to promote, habitat conservation are hunters. Look at Pheasants Forever, Ducks Unlimited, Quail Forever, National Wild Turkey Federation, and others.

Edit: also check out this fantastic piece on big horn sheep hunting by the New York Times. Trophy hunters are saving the wild sheep populations in the United States, in 2013 one license was purchased for $480 thousand and a a Reno auction of about 30 sheep permits raises approximately $3 million annually. The Wild Sheep Foundation adds money to that total, in 2016 it was $4.7 million and contributions total more than $110 million since its founding 40 years ago. Since the 1950's, wild sheep populations have more than tripled. Who else is willing to give that kind of money for habitat protection and species conservation?

Here's a 60 minutes piece showing ranchers in Texas bringing back nearly extinct animals by letting people trophy hunt some. "Conservationist" rather the animals go extinct than they be brought back this way

The natives are still gonna use giraffes as bushmeat though. It said trophy was only a tipping point so I'd assume the rate of decline will continue unless conservation efforts in Africa become more strict.

...but how can we blame Americans for that?

I'm not a hunter but where I live it's a huge part of our culture, and real hunters can be counted on to care about the environment.

When I was a kid there was a push to put a giant landfill in the middle of our beautiful wilderness, the people who showed up to stop it were hippies and hunters.

Edit: by environment I mean the animals as well, nature.

Well controlled trophy hunting is actually good for Africas economy

No this is bull and a hopelessly simplistic view. (regulated) hunting is an important part of maintaining a balanced ecosystem.

Good thing it's happening in countries with little corruption and guaranteed good management of the parks and their fauna. Oh wait.

The reality is most of the world just doesn't give a fuck about animals. We only need some of them so we can keep doing people stuffs.

As a South Texas Whitetail ranch owner I can personally attest to the good that private hunting does. In the recent years the deer in Texas have been fighting a rare disease To combat this, the agencies that oversee managed ranches put a temporary ban on releasing new deer into potentially infected populations until you prove that the deer are healthy. This is helping the deer survive what could potentially be a species threatening situation all thanks to human conservation and hunting efforts.

Also I get 95% of the meat I use in a year from deer I personally raise, kill, and clean. I pay a local shop to have my meat processed so I know what goes into it. Anyone that disagrees with the morals of hunting, but won't personally kill the meat that you eat needs to take a look at the meat industry in both the US and throughout the world. The way we raise and kill our deer is 1000x more environmentally friendly and enjoyable for the animals than anything that the large cattle farms do.
Trust me, being mauled by a pack of coyotes or a mountain lion is a lot worse way to go than a .308 to the heart.

I've never hunted Giraffe, or anything other than deer or hog, but from what I understand, Giraffe can see very long distances and have very sensitive hearing. Getting close enough to one would probably be pretty difficult. I don't personally ever plan to go on a safari hunt, as I'm not a trophy hunter. I don't take issue with it, however, as long as it's done in a sustainable way and the animal isn't already endangered. But populations that are merely in decline could actually benefit from the money that comes from trophy hunting. It's FAR better than poaching!

environmental groups point to

Oh I guess just "Pointing" is science now, I mean trophy hunting isn't perfect, but if you point to legal hunting before pointing to poaching something is wrong with your judgement.

I've read about this topic over the years and it is a tricky one, there does seem to be some strong benefits. The industries popularity causing more land to allocated to animal habitats with little human footprint, which almost seems counter intuitive since it's a industry based on hunting.

The economic benefits are a bit cloudy, economic articles I've encountered tend to have trouble actually following the money and there are some real questions as to how much is actually going to conservation or getting back to local communities. I've seen some strong arguments that the money cycles mostly within the direct industries (guns/hunter tourism/outfitters) with almost no trickle down affect, possibly fueling more locals to resorting to illegal poaching. (this was only a theory, not proven).

So yeah, it's a tricky topic.

Change 'thousands' to 'hundreds of thousands' and smashing cats with a hammer to shooting them and yeah you're golden.

Actually we kind of rely on a lot of animals, because of foodchains and ecosystem balance.

It's like a Kenga tower, you can pull pieces out, but pull out the wrong piece and it all comes crumbling down. And us humans, are on the top of that Jenga tower.

That seems relevant and constructive to the current discussion.

I don't hunt, for food or for trophies, and don't really plan on it, but why do people give so much of a fuck about specific animals as if they are angelic creatures and totally disregard others? Do you give a shit about the thoughts and feelings of your hamburger? Your leather couch? Nature is nothing but a well-orchestrated dance of perpetual murder, people have violent lizard brains, and I don't really understand having more sympathy for a single giraffe being shot than the billions of chickens and cows living horrendous lives in the factory farming industry.

Is this just worse for you because violent disregard for animal lives is only acceptable when it's for profit rather than the pleasure of the act? Is it just easier for you to see the hunter's villainous face than the cold corporate decisionmaking machine? Is it because giraffes are cooler looking? That cows feel more expendable?

I'm not arguing for veganism either--I happily eat meat every day--I just can't parse how you'd be able to be so much more angry about one than the other.

smashing stray cats heads in with a hammer

Make it humane (gun), give it a name like "Euthanized".

Go for it. They're just gonna die in a shelter anyway. Better to have lived on the outside than to rot in jail until the doc takes you away.

Well, this is one topic that I'm on the fence about. Personally, I'm a deer/turkey/waterfowl hunter because I love eating wild game and love being outdoors, and I know that if there were no hunters, deer would literally eat themselves into starvation, limit the biodiversity by eating the food sources of other woodland critters, and spread disease like CWD and lyme disease and they'd cause tons more auto accidents and property damage. But I've personally felt sadness and remorse for every animal I've ever harvested, including fish. I've never had any desire to go on an exotic hunt and I feel like people who do it have a screw or two loose in their head. Clearly they do it because they like to kill shit.

BUT

Trophy hunting in Africa is a major source of conservation money where the government will use it to hire conservation officers to stop poaching, to manage rehabilitation efforts, and to educate the public. Also, oftentimes old, infertile, or particularly aggressive animals that are endangering humans and other members of their species are harvested, and the meat is given to local villages. Not to mention that trophy hunting tourism is a major source of revenue for some impoverished countries. There are, of course, illegal hunts or governments that don't manage their populations properly, but in many cases, the net gain from trophy hunting is positive and goes right back into protecting the animals and their habitat. There is much more to this topic than just the knee-jerk emotional response and it's not as simple as "this industry is evil and so are the people who support it" or "trophy hunting is the best and more people should do it."

This is basically propaganda. This article left out some important details.

1: the giraffe population is on the rebound ( a few years ago there were only 80k)

2: Much of the population loss is permanent due to loss of habitat.

3: Just because its not logistically reasonable to try to import meat from a large animal doesn't mean they're usually left to rot. I haven't done one of these myself but, i know a couple who have. Generally the meat is donated to the locals for most things. (but not all things)

4: It provides money to the parks for maintenance and the marks manage the game they have to keep populations stable or growing if need be.

5: Animals are not people.

Usually they donate the meat to the local people, at least in Africa. The head is usually taken and mounted if the hunter so chooses.

We're on reddit, boy. We'll figure out a way dammit!

Those people qualify more as preservationists than conservationists. Conservationists believe in wise use of resources, while preservationists believe in preserving the resources without using them.

smashing stray cats heads in with a hammer, would this be ok?

That's not the best argument because you're not allowed to torture animals at all, no matter the context. A clean kill with a bullet isn't considered torture

*edit: OP's original comment is exaggerated and incorrect. "Most wildlife" would not be extinct without trophy hunting. But in some (not all) cases, it has helped conservation efforts.

The natives are killing far more than trophy hunters though.

The whole hunting fees paying for conservation efforts is by no means exclusive to trophy hunting either.

Well in South Africa you will see the closest to farming of wildlife that you will get anywhere.

Like u/a7neu said - allowing private ownership of wildlife and allowing people to profit from wildlife have seen their numbers increase.

I have been to lion "farm" in South Africa where lions are bred and raised to be hunted. And this basically guarantees their continued existence as long as the business model remains profitable.

There are definite problems in the game ranching industry though:

Inbreeding and reduced genetic diversity.
There are allegations of mistreatment of some game - but I saw the lion pups through various stages at the farm I was at. It was just fine as far as I could tell.
Animals raised in captivity can't really adapt to wildlife - though not all animals "farmed" for game farms are raised in captivity.

Most of these problems can be solved through better governance, regulation and taxation though. And the industry provides significant benefits to South Africa's economy - and could provide benefits to the economies of other countries that also adopt this model.

Eliminating trophy hunting will basically just guarantee that these animals will go extinct faster because then there is no incentive for their continued existence.

NOTE: I don't like hunting, I would never hunt unless I had no other choice - and its sad to think that the lion cubs I saw at the farm will be hunted one day. But its also great to know that lions will never really be an endangered species in South Africa as long as the game ranching industry remains profitable.

EDIT: There is another issue also - which is that not all animals are really eager breeders - rhinos for example don't really like breeding allot. There are other reasons why the rhino population in South Africa dwindled in addition to this though - which includes restrictions on ivory trade. With those restrictions recently lifted there will hopefully be allot of money coming into the game ranching industry for stockpiles of rhino horn (that was harvested from live animals without harming them) and probably more work will go into increasing their population numbers as a profit motive. Maybe some work will go into artificial insemination if there is money.

Pandas are another example of animals that don't like breeding either.

"What if?" The actual case is that the current scenario is destroying a species, and once it's gone the lovely charitable game hunters will stop giving the slightest shit about the plight of the brown people who drove them about on the little hunting trip they went on once.

Its a tough question though. I don't necessarily advocate trophy hunting, I'm just trying to explain the reality of the situation. In situations where there is a problem animal, 100% yes cull it, but thats not always the case. Its not an ideal situation for sure, but I just want people to think about the whole picture before they have gut reactions to trophy hunters.

I don't think you understood the numbers here. Unless non hunters intend to pay more than 30k every time one of these hunter's want to kill one then concervation efforts are better off with the hunters.

I suppose I'm a little tired of the argument, "...some trophy hunting is used to provide funds for conservation efforts". As a conservation biologist, I just don't find that to be the case. Most papers I've read have been inconclusive at best; sure, sometimes some money trickles down or gets where it needs to go, but most of the time it seems like it disappears into thin air. I'm also concerned with the idea of farming for hunts on private land. It doesn't get at the heart of the issue. I became a conservation biologist to conserve the ecosystem, not just specific species, and having the animal alive and well (in large quantities) on private lands/farms doesn't really do me much good. I need them accessible, in the ecosystem, performing ecosystem services. Sure, on a report I can say I have X number of animals so the species is of least concern, but if they're not integrated into a healthy, happy, thriving ecosystem that the rest of the world (hikers, photographers, campers, wildlife viewers, etc) can enjoy, then what's the point? It's just a last minute solution, in my opinion. It gets the job done but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It's like plan "J" on my list. And I guess maybe we are on plan J at this point, but I research the success of ecotourism in places like Costa Rica and I feel that they have a better, more sustainable model for wildlife conservation. I think we should be pursuing that path more than exploring this very, quite frankly, shady business of trophy hunts.

Yes, but I reposted it on my facebook feed so I did my part! /s

Well these hunters pay the government of these countries to do so. Which goes back into conservation, most of the time the animal is cleaned and dressed and the meat is given to local villages for protein. Often times these villages can go months without an adequate protein source. Please be weary about where one gets news and information from.

It's not. You're right. I'm down-voting myself. It was an honest realization I had when Accujack pointed out that PETA isn't really concerned about animals. It was so profound a realization, I felt the need to type it out.

So after this form of income for conservation is gone, where else are they going to get support? The biggest hurdle for currently dropping species like rhino is the lack of ability to be marketed. Right now, rhino is just a cash hole, there's nothing in it for anyone, so why would a farmer or rancher pay literally millions to buy, raise and protect these animals that have zero value to them as a business. So, nobody raises or breeds them, and the population continues to crumble.

Sorry to all you self-proclaimed conservationists out there, but 'ban hunting, selling, and harvesting' of these animals is not the solution; it actually exacerbates the problem.

4,000 trophies in 10 years is nothing when compared to the total population out there. Those numbers are not from one area - it's total imports, from anywhere in the world. Because of those 4,000 animals, generally speaking, at least double that number are able to secure a future in a stable, protected environment because of reinvestment of the hunting, taxidermy, import, export, and game meat fees. Not to mention the amount of meat an animal such as a giraffe provides is enough for a community to survive on for a number of weeks.

But why should you listen to what I have to say? I've been an assistant manager and safari guide since 2011 in a 10,000 acre reserve in the Limpopo province of South Africa. There have been many discussions with photographic safari groups about the ethics of hunting and the intricacies and economics of managing a game reserve whose primary income comes from international hunters.

If you make hunting of game animals illegal, the species WILL die out save for a few groups in national parks such as Kruger, Serengetti and Ngorogoro. You're not saving the population, you're actually taking away the incentives and reasons for people to protect them, because the animals themselves no longer have any kind of value.

Additionally, you're also taking away a very important food source for lower income areas, who rely on hunters to provide butcheries with carcasses. Game carcasses are much cheaper and plentiful in rural areas than beef, which is revered as a 'ceremony' food because of its rarity.

Unless you can pay a land owner a comparable amount per capita of species and provide food for an area to fill the gap that removing hunting would create, you can't raise such an argument without being self serving and ignorant. This isn't even taking into account that we've removed natural predators such as lion and leopard in the vast majority of these areas, so artificial predation is necessary. Without it, the land would be destroyed by overgrazing, the carrying capacity would go down as scrub takes the place of grass (bare soil), and you would have mass casualties in the form of starvation. These carcasses would then lie, uneaten, in the sun until they rot because of lack of natural scavengers and predators, and would then spread disease, quickly wiping out whatever number had survived starvation.

So regardless of whether you believe trophy and meat hunting is ethical, a form of artificial predation is absolutely necessary. If these populations need to be kept in check and culled, it makes complete sense for landowners to add value to their animals and sell such activities to international guests, which make them able to provide greater care and infrastructure for their properties and the game within it, to in turn provide better opportunities for hunters, who will pay more in response.

So please think of the consequences of the policies you're talking about. It's not as simple as just banning hunting. If you have any questions feel free to ask, but keep in mind I'm not going to engage in argumentative conversation. If you have a question or concern about hunting and land management from someone who sees it firsthand, rather than media, now's your chance.

It's a tradition that goes waaaay back. Kings in England kept huge swaths of forest for their own hunting parties and punished poachers quite heavily (Robin Hood got on the wrong side of the crown thru poaching)

Theodore Roosevelt doubled the national parks system during his terms as president. As an avid hunter he saw a lot of reason to preserve wildlife.

If it wasnt for the hunting industry in south africa and the rest of africa for that matter, most wildlife on the continent would have been extinct very long ago. People should really eduacate themselves a bit better...

But aren't permits and tags already placing a limit on hunting?

Simple then. Kill humans -and- cats.

Hunting sustainable populations of wild animals for food seems more ethical than farming to me. Quick death after a decent enough life. Most farm animal conditions suuuuuuuuuuuck.

Trophy hunters are douchebags, but yes, the money they pay to hunt is used to save endangered animals.

Sorry the world isn't as black and white as your opinions.

So you weren't the only one who thought something was off about this article.

Killing them for meat even though they haven't paid into it. You generally need to fund conservation in order to hunt an animal in regulated countries. Africa is heavily regulated and so most people eating giraffes are being sneaky doing it. I think most countries there are strict.

If they kill them for food? Yes. As long as the dogs are feral and aren't tortured.

That's ignorance talking and all you have to do is google why people still hunt and you'd understand that ecologists are the ones who set hunting seasons and limitations for a reason.

The thing is, most people don't have an overwhelming urge to do this, because most people are reasonably good people. But we do have an overwhelming urge to outsource brutality that is largely indistinguishable from what you just said, because we need food and stuff. You are exchanging your money for smashed animal skulls - or, more accurately, mass sliced chicken necks, swine heads, bovines, etc.

And that gets you a package of chicken for, like, $6.00. The hunter is going to Africa to kill one animal for $150,000, and his purchase goes towards seeing a preserve for these animals get cordoned off and patrolled so that they can live reasonably long lives before being selected for a hunt - a risk they face just in the wild.

So you're saying that ~20% of giraffe deaths are caused by trophy hunting, and that's supposed to be a good thing because:

some trophy hunting is used to provide funds for conservation efforts.

It's there any evidence that the good outweighs the harm? Not trying to be sarcastic, I'm genuinely curious about that.

I think they should release wild elephants in Texas.

that poses basically zero threat to you.

Not if you shout 'OH MY GOD, IT'S COMING RIGHT FOR US !'. /s

...but Americans.

Good luck trying to reason with any of these people.

Likely due to fragmentation and loss of habitat the African efforts will eventually ban all hunt on giraffes. It would be the smart route at this point. There's geographically isolated groups so we'd probably need a plan to reintroduce and see if the species haven't drifted too far apart to outbreed. Edit: natives are already illegally taking giraffes like they do every animal.

i came here to say this, again people are using emotions as a tool and not facts

You assume that small Africans countries don't tend to have wildly corrupt governments.

This is such senseless reasoning. Cats were introduced to non-native habitats by humans, through no fault of their own. Subjecting them to abusive treatment and death for behaving naturally is just wrong. Trap, neuter, release programs have been shown to be beneficial in reducing feral cat populations in a humane manner. No need to need to call for their heads when humans are the ones who continue to let them outdoors in areas where they can kill native wildlife. Blame the real problem here, not the symptoms.

There are more tigers living under private ownership in the US than are living in India at this moment

There's a moral in there somewhere

Hunting is a basic human instinct.

If you do this, you should also put a pair of boxer shorts on it. Because it would be funny.

Respect

I have trouble with this logic, killing has to be part of the enjoyment... thats literally the purpose of the trip. If it wasn't why no just go on safari and watch the thing from the bushes? Then donate food to the tribe/money to the conservation effort.

Well, conservationists that oppose trophy hunting certainly aren't going to donate anywhere near the level of money that trophy hunting brings in for these people. They gotta do what they gotta do. It's just like Pac said, that's the way it is.

It would be fine for the natives to do it for food, but we can't be going over there to fun kill these guys. You're absolutely right.

So what if the natives get the food, and $250,000 paid by the guy who pulled the trigger, as is what happens every damn time?

Fucking travesty, these people shouldn't have running water or schools, fuck all that we should just never go there.

Especially sick is how the money earned from killing an old, non-breeding male is used to fund the conservation for the surviving animals, even thought the male posed no value to the herd, even driving off younger males from mating "harem" females.